Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed enforcement action on several breaches of planning control at a development near his house. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Councils continued delayed enforcement action to several breaches of planning control at a development near his house. Mr X said the delays caused him distress and time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mr X complained to us in June 2024 about events starting in Autumn 2020. Mr X had been aware of his concerns for more than 12 months and did not formally complain to the Council until December 2023 therefore part of his complaint is late as set out in paragraph 3 above. There are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate events between Autumn 2020 and June 2023 because Mr X could have reasonably complained to us sooner. I have investigated between June 2023 and November 2024 when I spoke to the Council enforcement officers and received the Councils response to my enquiries.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mr X’s complaint and supporting documents and spoke to him on the telephone.
6. I spoke to two Council planning enforcement officers. I considered the Council’s comments and response to my enquiries about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
7. I considered the Council’s policies, and relevant law and guidance as set out below.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Planning

9. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan unless other material planning considerations say they should not.
10. Planning considerations include issues like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
11. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views from a property;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
12. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.

Planning Enforcement

13. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning controls have been breached.
14. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use. Government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers.

Retrospective planning applications

15. A retrospective planning application is a way to obtain planning permission for a development that has already been carried out. The Council can ask an applicant to submit a retrospective planning application before taking any formal enforcement action.

What happened

Background

16. Mr X lives close to a business that has diversified and changed over many years.
17. Over four years ago Mr X complained to the Council’s planning enforcement department about noise from infilling at the site close to his house which did not have planning permission. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and made the decision the works would not result in irreversible harm. The Council asked the site owner to stop the works and submit a planning application and did not consider serving a formal notice would be expedient in planning terms.
18. Other planning breaches were witnessed at the site by a Council enforcement officer. These included industrial buildings which had planning permission limited to agricultural use, construction of a new industrial unit and a unit built larger than permission granted. The Council decided the best way to regularise this was for the site owner to submit several retrospective planning applications, which the site owner did in 2022.
19. Mr X was also concerned about commercial traffic using a local route to enter the site which was not in line with a historic planning condition. The Council explained large signs had been erected which addressed this issue. In summer 2022 a Council Environmental Health Officer, Officer 1, asked for a noise assessment to be completed for the site.
20. In early 2023 Mr X, a Council Planning Manager, Manager 1, the site owner and their agent, a local Councillor and Parish Councillor attended a site visit and discussed the key issues for the retrospective planning applications. Manager 1 asked the site owner to provide a new noise report which Officer 1 had previously asked for and for the landscaping on the site to be improved. The noise report was sent to the Council in early February 2023.

June 2023 onwards

21. In late June and July 2023 the site owners planning consultant and planning agent emailed Manager 1 about progress with the retrospective planning applications. The noise report was uploaded onto the Council website in early August 2023. Manager 1 said the delay in providing the report was due to the site owners struggle to commission noise consultants due to high demand for their services and their time dealing with other planning applications. The same day the noise report was uploaded onto the website, Manager 1 also sent it to Officer 1 and asked for comments. The Council said Mr X sent detailed comments on the noise report which were also sent to Officer 1 during August and September 2023.
22. In mid-December 2023 Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of the enforcement case and the retrospective planning applications at the site. He said there was a history of unauthorised development undertaken at the site which was regularised through planning permission at a later date and the Council let that situation persist. He said there was delay with determining the retrospective planning applications which caused stress and uncertainty over a long period of time. He said the noise nuisance disrupted the enjoyment of his property and garden and he had taken time and trouble gathering evidence, attending meetings and commenting on the planning applications.
23. In late December 2023 Officer 1 provided Manager 1 with comments on the site owners noise report and said there were some omissions that needed to be addressed.
24. Manager 1 carried out a site visit and carried out an assessment of the suitability of the site developments. Taking into account all the information, Manager 1 considered the strategic principal of the proposals was acceptable. Manager 1 also decided it was acceptable to keep the retrospective planning applications open and to ask for more information from the site owner’s agents to address the noise report concerns raised by Officer 1.
25. In mid-January 2024 Manager 1 wrote to the site owners agents and asked them to consider Officer 1’s noise report comments and for them to set a timeline for response. Manager 1 was not at work for part of early 2024. Manager 1’s cases could not be reallocated to other Council officers and on return to work they had a backlog of other planning cases to consider.
26. In mid-January 2024 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and gave a history of the Council’s involvement since Mr X first raised concerns in 2020. The Council said there had been delays with the site owners agents providing relevant reports the Council asked for and Manager 1 had written to the site owners agents requesting additional information which when received would enable a further public consultation and the planning applications could then be determined. The response also said the planning applications had taken a long time to be determined which was in part due to a significant increase in planning applications although new officers had since been recruited.
27. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s stage 1 response and escalated it to stage 2 in early April 2024.
28. In early May 2024 the Council responded at stage 2 of its complaints process and reviewed the stage 1 response, Mr X’s escalated concerns, its enforcement file and planning applications and remained satisfied the Council acted appropriately. It said it was entitled to ask for more noise information for the retrospective planning applications and although recognised delays did not consider it was at fault. It said if Mr X remained unhappy he should complain to us, which he did.
29. In October 2024 Manager 1 wrote to the site owners agent and asked for the revised noise information to be provided by late October 2024. The agent had other work commitments and wanted to discuss the noise concerns with Officer 1. Officer 1 gave additional advice to the agent and at the time of writing this decision the agent was still considering this.

Enquiries

30. In response to my enquiries the Council’s two enforcement officers said there was less enforcement officer involvement once the retrospective planning applications were submitted in 2022 and were waiting for them to be determined which was the best way to regularise the development. They did say if they found any significant harm they would take appropriate action and negotiate first and consider formal action if necessary but that had not been needed so far because there was no significant harm.

My findings

31. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
32. Planning enforcement is discretionary and government guidance encourages negotiation and advises that formal action should generally be used as a last resort.
33. When the Council became aware of the planning breaches it spoke to the site owner and advised they stop infilling on the site and submit retrospective planning applications, which they did in 2022. This was an option available to the Council to address breaches of planning control in a proportionate way and it acted appropriately. The Council assessed the site and considered whether any formal enforcement action was appropriate. The Council did not identify any significant harm, which was a judgement it was entitled to make. The Council was not at fault.
34. The retrospective planning applications are still to be determined. The delay is due to a combination of factors including delays in the site owners agent submitting reports the Council asked for, some delay due to staffing issues at the Council, which it has now addressed, and delays in the site owners agents providing additional noise information which is still ongoing. Manager 1 has assessed the site and decided it was still appropriate to keep the retrospective planning applications open whilst it received more information from the site owners agents. The agents still need to provide this outstanding evidence before a decision on the retrospective applications can be determined. The Council is not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation finding no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman